[ewomack]

Our polarized political environment inevitably leads to finger pointing. Something as horrible as 911 will lead to the current administration blaming the previous and the previous saying "we didn't do it." This whole issue is split amongst political lines and nothing else. The reasons behind 911 are far too complex to be reduced to something a single administration did at such and such a time. Most likely both the Clinton and Bush Administrations are equally at fault. In the end, regardless of what the Clinton Administration did or didn't do, or even what Bush I or Reagan did or didn't do, 911 happened on the current Administration's watch. That's pretty much indisputable. Other arguments that Clinton didn't act or Bush ignored the evidence in front of him or whatever all adds up to controversy. This leads, as always, to the usual futile circle that swirls around political issues in this country.

Anyway, not all of Europe was taken with Clinton, either. Sure he was more popular than Bush, but Bush has been more overt about American interests than Clinton was (though they both held similar views as to "American interests"). It's more in the way Bush says things than in what he's saying. That's the impression I get from people I know in Europe (those who don't like Bush, at least; not everyone hates him there, but he is very unpopular).

To answer your question better you should log into a political forum that includes lots of Europeans (and English threads). We do have some here, of course. You can simply ask them why they seem to hate Bush. You might get interesting answers.